DougE

So you're saying that areas where you and so many other complain about a lack of deer(2b and 5c)had 100,000 deer just there.Wow.

I understand the facts just fine.I understand what too manydeer did to the habitat.I also understand that the supposed worst areas of the state still have plenty of deer as long as they have a reason to be there.

DougE

Jim,30,000 dollars wouldn't pay the salary and benefits for one of the 100 employees that the PGC is short.

Confused

Sheesh

bawanajim

My point is that small game is gone ,nonexistent. We have turkeys and deer to hunt and they seem hell bent on getting it down to just turkeys.[:-]

When will it stop? When is enough enough? When they tell us? The open ended goals and inconclusiveresults seem to leave all options open.
What has to happen for some one to say we now have a deer population that is satisfactory and habitat is just peachy. Will we ever see the day that an adult doe is not perceived as the Antichrist?

BTBowhunter

Confused, you definitely posted one of the most well thought out objective posts I've seen in awhile.You point out the often forgottenfact that we need to find as much common ground as possible.

Unfortunately, the horsemay beout and the barn doormay be shut.
No matter what ones viewpoint is, we can't spin back the clock. If we we're to return tothe management style that managed for maximimum deer PSM many who weren't all that unhappy before all the changes would then be unhappy after having seen the differences that AR HR has made. If we continue on the path we're now on, those that want to return to the former deer densities will be unhappy.

IMHO, the solution likely to satisfy the most hunters on both sides is both simple and complex at the same time.

Lets set aside AR fior the moment and talk abour HR only. I do beleive that the vast majority here at least shares concerns that it may need to be throttled back a bit. We will never all agree totally on how many deer ought to be where but we can get closer than we are now.

As I see it, the simple butcomplicated soultion is smaller WMU's For example, DougE and has had great success finding deer in 2G while Germain, Sproul and others have seen their deer hunting decline. Livbucks and I both have good success in 2F but we both agree that there are places in 2F where the deer are almsot gone.

OK simple, go to smaller WMU's right?

Maybe, but how small do we make em? The county system was one of smaller WMU's and it was cerrtainly less than perfect. If we truly make the WMU's small enough to address the hotspot/coldspot issues, we could have hundreds of different WMU's. It would definitelyimpair our freedom to just get in the truck with the guys and just go hunting without having first planned it like a mission.

Hey joe, lets go up to camp and bowhunt this weekend. We'll start at beaver swamp, maybe hit bobcat hollowor otter creek. If that doesnt look good we'll try gameland 2796 or hit the timber company ground out the road. Wait a minute, do you haveyour doe permits for 325A, 743B, 996D, 777E and 324G and DMAPs for the timber co?!?!?!Thats an exaggerated example but I remember guys at the gun club and in the gun stores bitching about the few WMU's we now have being confusing when they were new.

I used that example above to point out that there will be no easy answers. Confused is right though, we have a better chance of doing something good if we all try to remember that we're all hunters here andwhile we'll never all agree on everyhting, maybe we can agree on some things and capitalize on those areas to get something done.

fellas2

Confused,let me say that I think your original post is well thought out and excellent.I,like you grew up "in the old days" and know all too well the point you're trying to make and agree with many of your opinions and conclusions.Unfortunately you'll find that it doesn't take much to start the same argument time after time.Most guys who read and post here have very strong opinions and are usually unwilling to budge from them.Not saying I agree or disagree with the current PGC programs, but there does seem to be very little middle ground anymore.I would hope that we're all striving toward a common goal but I guess when you have grown men as passionate about a sport as many hunters I know are,it's going to be real difficult.I laugh at the guys who post here berating the "old timers who grew up hunting in the big woods" for not wanting to change their tactics or locations but are the first to want some one crucified for even mentioning the words crossbow or inline when it comes to Pa.Change has become the norm in this country(just look at this years election) and is sometimes inevitable,but change just for the sake of change or change for one or a groups own motives is inexcusable.It's a shame that many of todays hunters couldn't experience the "red woolrich" days at deer camp cause I don't think they realize what they missed.Hunting seemed to be a lot more fun then.But I'll carry on along with my three sons who are my hunting companions and hope they stay as passionate about the sport as I am and are knowledgable and vocal enough to put hunting back on the right track so that future generations may enjoy it as much as i have !

thndrchiken

I don't claim to have any answers, but I can speak from my experience. When I first started hunting PA when I got out of the military in 96 during the rifle seasons it was not uncommon for you to see at least 30 deer during a day of hunting if you saw a small buck no big deal you knew you would see more later. Now your lucky if you see 3 or 4 and they are usually 2 or 3 does milling together. The experience of hunting the "Sportsman's Paradise" has drastically gone downhill. This is not just deer that I speak of either. I hunt the 2G/4D area, deer, squirrel, grouse, pheasant, turkey and trout populations all way down. License prices going up. The services that the PGC perform are pitiful, WCO's would rather bust your chops and write a littering ticket for not coming out of the woods with and empty case after you took a shot instead of going after all the poachers and road hunters that we all know are out there.

bluebird2

No you don't or you wouldn't have questioned the 1.6M deer. You forgot the 1.5 M figure didn't include the SRA counties and you didn't realize that 100K PS deer is not a surprising number of deer considering the high breeding and recruitment rates in SRA counties.

Cornelius08

"Cornelius and Jim,there's only three WMU's that had an increase in allocations from 2003-2007"

Thats not what was said and not what is the problem and you know it. That was some nice par for the course ignoring what was said and answering something that wasnt asked.

".2A which has the highest dd in the entire state "

No it doesnt. The dd isnt as high as the sras. It also SHOULD be as high as any other wmu in the state BECAUSE ITS THE BEST HABITAT in the state being farmland and reverting farmland, far milder climate than the mountainsand the human conflict was rated low. Yet we were dropped by over 50% to the ow herd and CONTINUING despite claims of "stabilization" as Id shown. SO please, tell me, how does your statement address ANY of that? Should we have even fewer deer even though there is zero reason for it and the claim is stabilization? Or is it you just blindly strongly support anythingthing the pgc does or says?

I had heard a time or two.[:'(]that the goals were human conflict, herd health and habitat. I guess those only matter when it equals less deer. Not more. Perhaps youcould show mewhere the goal has changed to being particular deer densities as youseem to believe, which pgc has stated countless times IS NOT the case?

Confused

Thanks for the responses that were on topic. It would seem to be a good idea to attempt to find some common ground-something that many of us can agree on.